IMAGINE IF U.S. VOTED LIKE THE FRENCH DO

Editor -- I was in France during their recent presidential election and was amazed at how civilized it was. The French elect a president every seven years, most candidates declare only a few months before the election. Each receives the equivalent of a million dollars from the state, not for slick TV ads and bumper stickers but rather to help them explain their positions on crucial issues.

Voting is in two rounds, two weeks apart. Before the first round, nine candidates had equal time on national television. After the primary, the two finalists debated for two hours, held close to the issues by moderators.

No opinion polls can be published during the week before voting. Wives and families stay in the background, barely mentioned. The French discuss substance, not past personal transgressions. The voting was on Sundays, and only the presidency was on the ballot, not a myriad of complex propositions. Eighty percent of those eligible cast their vote.

With exit polls and computers, the winner was announced the minute the polls closed, confirmed within a few hours by the government. The party lasted until dawn. Jacques Chirac was inaugurated a week later. No time for lame-duck giveaways.

Imagine an America where we all vote in one national primary, eliminating wasted time, money and power brokering. Eligible candidates are funded by tax dollars, not special-interest groups. Campaigns last six months not two years, and the new government is at work before the old one has time to give away the store. Imagine.

J. HERMANN

Kentfield

WILSON AND FAVORITISM

Editor -- On June 1, The Chronicle reported that Governor Wilson "intends to move from 'favoritism to fairness' by gutting" programs providing business opportunities to women and minorities. In the same edition, you reported the governor's request that a rule against taking campaign contributions from municipal bonds securities dealers doing lucrative work for the state of California not apply to him. According to your article, Governor Wilson wanted special treatment to avoid a rule which was "designed to prevent conflicts of interest and favoritism."

While I realize in these days of "Christian" fund-raisers covered with jewelry, and child support deadbeat Newt Gingrich preaching "family values," that blatant hypocrisy has ceased to be newsworthy. However, when printing two such articles on the same day, perhaps you should consider combining them with one headline "Governor Wilson Against Favoritism -- For Others."

RICK SIMONS

Hayward

A FIRST STEP

Editor -- As an American of Asian descent, I support Governor Wilson's executive order to eliminate the state's affirmative action programs including the disbanding of the 150 advisory boards. I consider it a good first step toward bringing common sense and sanity back into our society. I have always considered it a lunacy to believe that because some gender or ethnic group was "under-represented" in some business, that business was automatically guilty of racism or sexism. The marketplace should be allowed to decide the composition of a business or industry. The winner will be those businesses that hire the best -- irrespective of sex or ethnicity.

BUD SODBINOW

Livermore

WATERING A DESERT

Editor -- It is ironic that the front-page article of May 31 stated that an independent think tank study now finds that California has sufficient developed water resources through the year 2020. The Pacific Institute study states that over 75 percent of all our water goes to agriculture and over half of that water is used by agribusiness for rice, cotton and alfalfa where both the crops and the water are subsidized by federal tax dollars. We are paying large landowners in arid areas of the state to waste our water resources at the expense of new business, urban growth, fisheries and environmental water quality of our bays and rivers. Several years ago Senator Bill Bradley made the same observation more succinctly when he pointed out "California doesn't have a water shortage. The problem is that you're growing rice in the desert."

DANIEL MYERS

Philo (Mendocino County)

FANS' FRUSTRATION

Editor -- In an article describing the dramatic reduction in attendance at San Francisco Giants games, Matier & Ross (Chronicle, May 31) note a 46.8 percent decline in the number of fans attending home games since the Major League baseball strike was settled. In the same article, Richard Goldman, a principle investor for the Giants, is quoted as saying, "If the public doesn't want to support the team -- as is apparent at the moment -- then . . . we may have to contemplate some other action (such as) moving or selling the team."

I am astounded by the arrogance displayed by Mr. Goldman (and perhaps other Major League baseball owners) so soon after settling the strike. The statement by Mr. Goldman belies any recognition of the residual frustration felt by fans directed at all of Major League baseball (players and owners alike) as a result of the protracted strike. I, for one, was pushed beyond my limits of tolerance as a result of the blatant disregard shown during the strike for the end consumer of professional baseball -- the fan. Therefore, I decided to exercise the only significant form of protest available to baseball fans, by vowing not to be a consumer of any form of Major League baseball for the 1995 season.

Perhaps the near 50 percent decline in attendance so far this season should be a signal to Mr. Goldman and the rest of Major League baseball that fans have reached their limits of tolerance and are willing to demonstrate their collective frustration. Far from not supporting the Giants or Major League baseball, fans appear willing to sacrifice some entertainment in order to demonstrate their concern about where the game is headed.

JOSEPH ROMSON

San Francisco

MISSION ROCK CASE

Editor -- Your June 5 editorial, "Save Mission Rock," misses the point. You write that the Port Commission should be doing everything they can to preserve a bit of authentic San Francisco and that's just what we are doing.

Unfortunately, our problem is not with the restaurant itself but rather the tenant. The Port Commission has a policy of renegotiating leases with tenants who are in good standing and meet the minimum standards for acceptable business practices. These standards are both fair and reasonable and designed to protect not only the tenant but the public who owns these franchises. In the case at hand, the tenant at Mission Rock had been given notices on numerous occasions that improvements were needed to adhere to safety and code requirements. Unfortunately, they failed to not only revitalize the property but to even simply maintain it. The Port Commission would be irresponsible by allowing an operator who continues to accept decline in business as a natural progression, who accepts frequent police activity, lapses in insurance coverage, rent payments that are either late or returned for non-sufficient funds, and code violations.

It is the Port Commission's intent to have a responsible operator who can revitalize and restore the property, thereby enticing the citizenry to appreciate the history and aura of our southern industrial waterfront.

PRESTON COOK, president S.F. Port Commission

ADS VS. PLEDGE BREAKS

Editor -- On KQED's decision to air commercials: when it comes down to it, commercials are far better than pledge breaks. Pledge breaks just go on and on.